Main menu

Post navigation

The pieces we’re missing

A news article in the latest MB Herald, with the headline “MB seminary professor apologizes for remarks,” reveals that B.C. conference minister Steve Berg sent an email to the MB seminary (MBBS) board in November expressing “his concerns” that “Mark Baker states that penal substitutionary atonement is unbiblical.” The email also said, “In what is already a very challenging time for MBBS, we are concerned that there is a disconnect underway between BCMB churches and MBBS, and the atonement debate is accelerating the process.”

The article describes and quotes Baker’s response to the B.C. executive and pastors. Baker sounds gracious and thorough in explaining what he believes and what he wishes he’d communicated more clearly, what he wishes he had not written. The content of it sounds very much like what he stated at the MB study conference in Saskatoon in October — the same affirmations, clarifications, attempts at nuance — though he goes further to address a number of his responses at the conference itself. At that event, he stated his first book will be revised. He also clearly affirmed the MB Confession of Faith, Article 5 on Salvation, and does so again in his letter. I attended and reported — here — on the Saskatoon conference. I don’t recall “‘unbiblical’ rhetoric.” I do know that Baker felt himself rather on the block, so to speak, which is never an easy place to be, and I do recollect that he responded carefully and with integrity to the challenges raised to him.

My opinion on whether an apology is necessary is beside the point, however. He made it, and it needs to be received.

But, will it be received? Has it been? Maybe that’s what’s bothering me about this article. It’s not what’s here, but the pieces we’re missing. The back story. And what happened next.

Re. the back story, I’m wondering why Berg sent this email to the seminary board after the October conference, when Baker’s views had been clearly indicated there. Berg himself led the session in which Baker presented. Is there other pressure coming to the B.C. executive? From the two people Baker says he wishes he had responded to more affirmingly? From those who did not attend? What’s going on? Berg notes an accelerating debate, but it’s hard to believe that Baker is responsible. And, to be honest, I’m queasy, fearing he’s being made the fall person.

MBBS president Lynn Jost is also quoted in the article. He thanks the B.C. executive for communicating their concerns directly with the seminary, and reminds of the seminary’s commitment “to biblical authority and to interpreting the Bible in a way consistent with the MB Confession of Faith.” This commitment, truly said and truly meant, is also not new. Has it been heard and truly received? I can’t help recalling Jost’s words at the MB Forum recently, about “the difficult position that a culture of suspicion raises for the Seminary.”

Yesterday, I happened to be sorting through a pile of papers and came upon the candid words of a young B.C. pastor to the recommendation on women in ministry at Calgary some years ago. He intended to support the motion, he said, even though it hadn’t gone as far for full and equal participation as he wished. Because of that, it would require his own “self-control and respect of people who believe very differently.” He went on to say, “It will also require some of you to stop labeling me and others who believe similarly, as heretics or on a slippery slope to liberalism, or as being soft on ethics, or whatever other label you might use to write off people who hold a reasoned opinion that disagrees with your own.”

His words felt oddly familiar within this new context. There’s been labelling, baiting, mollifying of behaviors that foster a culture of suspicion, withdrawing of financial support. (The latter has always struck me as the most pernicious, and I’d even say ungodly, strategy individuals or churches can use to exert pressure, because it’s so powerful and puts others into danger not just economically but spiritually.)

The letter has now been reported. But is there more we should know? And will there be other, good, responses to come?

5 thoughts on “The pieces we’re missing”

Thanks for your perspective on the situation, Dora. I agree, at times it’s hard to see where relational unity (personal and corporate) fits into the process you’ve described. I also think it’s good to hear the perspectives of other parts of our Canadian MB family, as you’ve done. So, thanks!

Thanks David. My perspective at this point is a lot of questions — but of course I did also move into some “editorializing” on my “sense” of things in my post. I’ll definitely admit that! Your mention of unity is interesting. I think Canadian MBs have been quite desperate to keep it and that’s understandable. But sometimes we work at it publicly in odd ways — either keeping the lid tightly on the bubbling pot, or letting the steam escape on only one side. I thought we walked out of that open discussion session in Saskatoon more united actually, precisely because difference was spoken, diversity acknowledged, and yet solid, underlying agreement recognized. It’s counter-intuitive.

It is an exasperating story- but probably what we need to keep figuring out as a family. There was a very informative discussion [IMHO] around this on the MB Forum which resulted in an interesting clarification of the process by Lynn Jost.http://www.mbforum.ca/topic/3002.html
This was the most important part of the discussion and ended up in the no-zone of the Forum.
The MB atonement debate is still a tangled web but one with opportunity, I believe.

Thanks James. I appreciate your link to Lynn Jost’s remarks at the Forum — I thought I’d made the link above but seem to have made an error. The conversation that led up to that at the Forum was useful too; whoever you all were, I was grateful for the insistence of many on caution when making judgements of others.
I appreciate your statement about opportunity as well. There may be those who feel the MBH should not have reported this. I thought it was a fine piece. But now that it’s there, it requires more for the sake of its particular subjects. It’s leaving a certain impression that may be incomplete. (Though I don’t know.) How I’d love to hear how you pastors and B.C. leaders responded. Oops, I think I’m starting to repeat my post….🙂

The BC Conf got a pretty big push-back from a lot of pastors who had attended the Saskatoon Study Session. There were a lot of people- including myself who wrote responses expressing displeasure. It is hard, even for a person like myself, who is quite connected to get a sense of scale but my sense is that Steve Berg was speaking from a minority position. It’s tough to know, however if we don’t talk about things like this formally. And that’s the rub IMO.